mcp-testops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_test_cases

Search Allure TestOps test cases by AQL/RQL query or name and return full case details with pagination totals. Use it to filter cases by status, tag, or name without client-side filtering.

Instructions

Search test cases with AQL (the API calls it rql) and return full cases.

Give either rql or name. name becomes the AQL query name ~ "" on the server, nothing is filtered client-side. Examples (syntax to be verified on the stand): name ~ "login", status.name = "Draft", tag.name = "smoke". Returns {content: [case fields], rql, totalElements, totalPages, number}.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_test_cases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rql`	No
`name`	No
`page`	No
`size`	No
`sort`	No
`deleted`	No
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: that name is translated server-side into an AQL `name ~ "<name>"` clause and that no filtering happens client-side. It still says nothing about permissions, pagination bounds, what the `deleted` flag actually does, or how project_id scopes results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action and the either/or parameter rule, then examples, then return shape. The parenthetical "syntax to be verified on the stand" is slightly noisy but does flag uncertainty about the examples.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists and the description redundantly restates it, so return values are covered. But for a seven-parameter, zero-annotation search tool, five parameters and all behavioral constraints (pagination, sorting syntax, deletion scoping) are undocumented, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently beyond the simplest case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all seven parameters, but it only addresses rql and name (with query syntax examples). page, size, sort, deleted, and project_id are left entirely undefined in both the schema and the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search test cases") plus the query language it accepts, including the AQL/rql naming mismatch. It implicitly separates itself from list_test_cases by framing the tool around query-driven search, but never names that sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Give either rql or name" gives a real usage constraint on the two query parameters, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_test_cases or get_test_case, nor any statement of when-not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.